La Loba De Wall St. LLC, et al. v. Hillfoot LLC

58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) Enacting this deadline "indicates an intention by the Legislature not to vest any authority in the court" to rule on untimely motions to compel further responses. (Id. at p. 1409.)

Defendant served his discovery responses to requests for production, requests for admission, and special interrogatories on March 27, 2026. (Opps., Ex. A.) Plaintiff had until May 11, 2026 to file these motions. The motions were not filed until June 10 and June 29, 2026. Because the motions are untimely, the Court has no jurisdiction to rule on them.

In addition, Plaintiff did not file the requisite separate statements for each motion. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a) provides, "Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement." This constitutes a separate ground for denial of the motions.

Sanctions

Defendant requests $2,745 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff. "[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction ... against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." (CCP Sec. 2031.310(h) [requests for production]; CCP Sec. 2030.300(d) [interrogatories]; CCP Sec. 2033.290(d) [requests for admission].)

Plaintiff unsuccessfully brought these three discovery motions. There is no indication that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification in doing so. Therefore, sanctions are appropriate. However, the Court exercises its discretion to reduce the fees requested by two-thirds. Defendant's opposition briefs are almost identical to one another and consist only of a one-and-a-half page memorandum of points and authorities and a two-page declaration, along with exhibits. Thus, Defendant is entitled to $915 in sanctions.

Disposition

Plaintiff Sajma Wittmann's three motions to compel production of documents and further responses are denied. Plaintiff Sajma Wittmann is hereby ordered to pay Defendant Michael Finley $915 in sanctions within 21 days.

et al. v. Hillfoot LLC

Attorney Steven N. Richman's Motions to Be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiffs La Loba De Wall St. LLC and The Nuno Residence LLC, and Cross-Defendant Maricela Nuno

Attorney Steven N. Richman of Epport, Richman & Robbins, LLP moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs La Loba De Wall St. LLC and The Nuno Residence LLC, and Cross-Defendant Maricela Nuno. The Court cannot grant the motions.

Attorney Richman did not lodge a proposed order on form MC-053 with the Court. (See California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).) The proposed order must be filed and served on all parties. (See California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d) ["The notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case."] [emphasis added].)

In addition, Richman did not list the Case Management Conference scheduled for September 9, 2026 as an upcoming hearing date on his declarations. (See Decls., Sec. 4.) Apart from these procedural defects, Attorney Richman's motions meet all other requirements. Attorney Steven N. Richman's motions to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs La Loba De Wall St. LLC and The Nuno Residence LLC, and Cross-Defendant Maricela Nuno are denied without prejudice. | Home -->)" -->